Precision Analytics Products now available

Precision Analytics is now open for business in the sale of our Library of Evidence, Dedicated Cases, Custom Cases (Must contact us personally), and Topical Briefs.

See our side bad on the left for more info.

Evolution, Natural Rights, The Social Contract And Animal Rights

        The following is from the web page of CapeCodToday.com;

        "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."

 -Charles Darwin, Introduction, Origin of Species, 5^th ed. (1869).

     "Thus, the question of whether justice can be achieved in society  may not depend on whether individuals can be forced to comply with civil authority but on whether individuals and civil authority can act  in  harmony with, and fulfill their moral obligations toward, each other.    Moreover, there may be a moral obligation to comply with civil authority only if that authority is legitimate (i.e. if that authority is based on a fair and just agreement among the members of society).

 - Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762)

            This is the second of a three-part discussion of the truly moonbat sociopolitical movement that calls itself "animal rights." As discussed and documented in the prior post, the "animal rights " credo is nothing but a mindless jumble of misplaced sentiment, scientific ignorance and illogic, based primarily on hatred of humanity rather than any real concern for the other creatures with which we share the Earth, or any sensible moral or ethical reasoning.

            Here, I pick up the subject again, from perspectives of our biological evolution as a species capable of understanding abstract ideas such as life, liberty or "rights", and the political philosophy that underlies the basic concept of rights under law, i.e. the "social contract" that forms the basis for all forms of government and all legal systems.  The final segment to follow will discuss and document the deleterious legal and political effects that the "animal rights" and "animal liberation" movements have had on our genuine and legitimate concerns for both the environment and animal welfare and other important social and economic concerns as well.

A.        The Concept Of "Rights" Is Specifically Human, Based On Our Much Higher Capacity For  Abstract And Analytical Thought, Developed By Mankind Over The Eons Through The Process Of Evolution ,Which Has And Can Have No Meaningful Application To The Other Species That Inhabit The Planet Earth.

           We are the only extant members of the genus Homo, and the only one that ever existed which could sensibly be termed Homo Sapiens which means, literally, "sapient" man.  That is to say, not necessarily "wise" man, but "discerning" man, "aware" man or "thinking" man is closer to the truth.  There are no other species, existing now or at any prior time, that can be said to have been sapient in this sense to the degree of the modern human race, which has evolved from a long series of hominid ancestors, showing a gradual but steady progression toward what we know now as specifically human physiological features and specifically human cognitive capacities. 

          That progression, surely, is due to a combination of evolutionary fortuities, such as our predecessor species descending from the trees to walk erect, the movement of our eye sockets toward the center to allow binocular vision and visual  perspective, the development of the opposable thumb, which is a significant difference between us an our nearest related species among the great apes and which is the basis for our unquestionably superior ability to develop skills like tool making which in turn lead to increased capacity for abstract thought and analysis.

          It was not just our larger cranial capacity, but a combination of such physiological changes over many eons, in response to physical changes in the world around us, that led eventually through the process ofevolution to the degree of sapience that defines the human species. That degree of sapience alone is what significantly differentiates us from the great apes in terms of our ability to manipulate, affect and understandthe world around us.  This is not to claim any moral superiority for humans, or any direct divine intervention that sets us apart from other animal species, but our evolution into Homo Sapiens is clearly what defines us as the only creatures on Earth which have, or can have, any moral obligations or expectations with respect to other individuals.

           Evolution itself is an abstract concept that emerged in the 19^th Century through the writing of Charles Darwin. Only a member of the species Homo Sapiens, which is to say only a human being, is even capable of understanding such concepts as taxonomy and evolution which inform all present day understanding of biology and ecology.  Could there have been prior hominids with a similar level of cognitive  ability, such as the Neanderthals perhaps? Maybe, but the fact remains that the human race today is the only species possessing the capacity to think abstractly about concepts such as liberty, equality or rights.

          The concept of "rights," no less than the concepts of taxonomy, evolution, politics, ethics, morality, religion et cetera, is something that could only have been devised by a species having evolved to the same level of sapience as we have, and it is one that can only be understood or practiced by such a species.  That is it is something that is solely and uniquely human, as a product of a specific evolution that significantly differentiates us from all the other creatures that inhabit the Earth.

          There are other species, among the other primates especially, who have evolved to certain rudimentary levels of sapience, including relatively complex abilities to communicate, to plan ahead, to use tools, and so forth.  Even sparrows display what appears to be planning when they select the materials they will use to build a nest, but Chimpanzees display considerably more awareness of future events, like the one in the Swedish zoo that stockpiles rocks in the evening to throw at the tourists the next day:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chimpanzee-plans-throws-stones-zoo

Still,  that is a far cry from the level of intelligence and analysis that is required to form complex abstract ideas like  evolution, taxonomy, rights or duties.

           This is particularly true when we consider how the highly abstract concept of rights itself has evolved along with our uniquely human social and political development, as we progressed from roaming tribes of hunter gatherers, similar to bands of wild Baboons, to the level of organized civilization that marks all modern human societies.  This sapient concept of civilization itself is key to understanding the basic nature of rights and ethics that exist under any modern constitutional democracy or, indeed, under any other political system that has existed over the past three millennia and more since the invention of writing and the evolution of  language.

           This all just Biology 101, and it may sound only too obvious to the informed and intelligent reader.  I hope so, because it is something of which the "animal rights"  advocates who so shrilly protest our human interactions with other species, and those who ignorantly support them with money and uncritical press coverage, are plainly oblivious.

         The self-appointed "animal-rights" advocates attempt to claim "rights" for other animal species, based on inane anti-human ethical considerations, rights that only they perceive and only they are capable of enforcing, through frivolous litigation under the civil and criminal laws, and by terrorist political activity outside those laws, while they display an appalling ignorance of reality in terms not only of our biological evolution but of our political evolution, and the essential nature of rights as well.

B.        The Idea Of Rights Does Not Exist In A  Cultural  Or  Intellectual Vacuum But Is A Highly Abstract Creation Of The Human Intellect That Is Based On Our Unique Capacity For Defining Relationships  Through Systems Of  Mutual Obligations, Which Has Been Best Described As The "Social Contract" That Underlies All Human Civilization.

         Our secular Constitutional democracy is based on a system of rights that is wholly the product of the human mind, and it derives as such from the social, cultural and intellectual revolution that occurred in Eighteenth Century Europe known as the "Age of Enlightenment."  Jefferson, for example, drew upon both Christian ethics, without all the Biblical "nonsense" about Jesus' divinity, and upon secular Enlightenment principles, integrating both when he drafted the Constitution of the United States, which is the sole basis of any rights we may claim as American citizens or for anyone else within the territorial jurisdiction  and subject to the laws of our liberal democratic government.

              In nature, where all creatures on the planet including ourselves basically exist, there is no such thing as a system of "rights."  Mid-18th Century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau gave us a good, general outline of how the concept of political rights evolved as a thing apart from "natural rights" in his seminal work "The Social Contract, Or Principles Of Political Right," (1762).  Despite some quibbles we might have with him today over particulars such as religion or minority rights, his analysis is still both cogent and as applicable to our Constitutional democracy as it was when the Founders, guided by Enlightenment principles, established our government in the late 18th Century.

        Rousseau posited that in the state of nature there exists a system of "natural rights" based solely on force and self-interest.  There is absolute liberty in the natural world, free of all moral, religious or legal constraints, which is to say free from any rules based on abstract principles that any individual creature, man or animal, must consciously obey.  In Rousseau's natural world every creature has an equal right to life with all others, but also an equal right to take any other creature's life for self-preservation, for food, for reproductive advantage, whatever.

        Those "natural rights," based on an absolute freedom to live, and to kill or to be killed by a stronger creature, still exist as the basic reality for all species other than man.  That is a very different matter from civil rights, legal rights or other political rights, because political rights are based on principles of contract, as in Rousseau's analysis. That is the abstract system of rights and duties he described as "The Social Contract," as opposed to natural "rights" which exist a priori and which every solitary creature in the natural world must claim and defend for itself, within its ability to do so as determined solely by genetics and fortuitous evolutionary factors.  

         As Rene Descartes noted about our human awareness of self, as existing both within and apart from the world around us:

        Cogito ergo sum.

"Principles of Philosophy" (1644).  "I think, therefore I am"  is not really a denial of the objective, physical existence of other,  non sapient creatures, but it is a basic truth about humans as not only objectively self-aware beings, but as being objectively aware of others as well.  It is only this high level of objective awareness, orsapience,  that gives us the ability to recognize and define abstract concepts such as life, liberty and equality and to devise legal systems to codify such abstract concepts as rules of behavior among ourselves.

        That is not to say that other species do not follow "rules" of behavior, but only that such rules are always determined by genetics, or among certain higher mammals learned behaviors rooted in genetic predisposition.   No species other than man has ever developed a rights-based system, based on ideation, imagination or forethought,  for controlling group behavior derived from and defining abstract principles such as justice, morality, equality or, even, liberty itself which all creatures possess in the state of nature.

            A basic "social contract," whether derived from oral tribal tradition, theological principles or any number of political philosophies such as monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, is essential to any civilization and to any government which is empowered to define and to enforce its rights or those of its subjects.  A social contract defining rights must also define duties, as between the government and the governed, and no system of rights can even be understood without its concomitant system of duties.  Any government exists to protect its citizens against other peoples or against the perils of the natural world, while the citizens have a duty to support the government by obeying laws, paying taxes, serving in the military et cetera. 

                 The social contract among any given people can be modified, frequently through rebellion or force, as with the Magna Carta in 13^th Century England when the aristocracy rebelled and forced King John to cede some of his absolute power after the Battle of Runnymede.  In the Magna Carta the Barons renewed their oath of loyalty to the King, in return for the King's concession of significant political and economic rights to the Barons.

           In addition to Rousseau, other 18^th Century Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes sparred intellectually over the nature of rights.  Locke argued for the primacy of certain Natural Rights, such as life and liberty as absolutes, while Hobbes argued that rights are purely  theoretical abstractions, defined by and enforced for the convenience of any given people and/or their rulers.  These separate strains of Enlightenment thought were a direct influence on our American Founders, such as Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton et alii, when they devised our secular Constitutional democracy in the closing years of the 18^th Century.

          As with the Magna Carta five centuries earlier, our Constitution was a truly revolutionary redefinition of an older political order which came about only after armed struggle.  And like the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States is, in the Hobbesian view, basically words on paper that define what our individual rights are, as well as our mutual obligations to one another under an abstract system of government. It is thus in Rousseau's view, a "social contract" reduced to writing and signed by the Founders for themselves and their "posterity,"  which is us, not Fido, Bossy, Bambi or the Lil' Red Rooster.

           The Constitution, however, was preceded by the Declaration of Independence, another embodiment of abstract principles, which states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Here, the Founders, then truly rebels against established government, challenged the basic notions of government and society that underlay several millenia of prior European civilization, all based on their ability not simply to use force but to use abstract ideas to justify such force and to motivate others to do so as well.

             By referring to "certain inalienable rights" endowed by our Creator, they were clearly referencing the Lockean principles of liberty and equality which exist as "Natural Rights," but they were doing so in context of redefining the nature of government itself as having "just powers" that affect such natural rights but only as derived from "the consent of the governed."  It is axiomatic that in order to give consent to any system of government, i.e. to benefit from and be subject to the rights and duties prescribed  by such system, one must at least be theoretically capable of understanding that system and the mutual obligations that exist thereunder. 

             The Constitution is thus a social contract among men that defines both "rights" and obligations that exist only among men, collectively known as "the people" and, after ratification of the 14^th and 19^th  Amendments, including both black men and then women as well.  Also,  the Preamble to the Constitution begins "We the People. . . " before setting out a detailed system of rights and duties, based on abstract principles of liberty and equality belonging to the people. 

C.        The "Animal Rights" Movement And The So-Called "Ethical" Philosophy On Which It Is Based Trivializes And Demeans Both The Very Idea Of Rights Generally And The Specific Secular Rights We Enjoy Under Our Constitutional Democracy.

            The Constitution is the sole source of our legitimate government in America today, and both the civil and criminal laws which exist to protect our rights and to define our duties as people.  The 4^th Amendment, for example, speaks of the "right of the people to be secure in  their persons . . ,"   (emphases added), and the 5^thAmendment provides further that:

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

The only "rights" that exist under the laws of our Constitutional democracy, as defined by the ethical and philosophical Enlightenment principles on which it is based, thus belong solely to us, the "people."  

          Those rights were won for us by the Founders, as their "posterity,"  at the expense of both traumatic social upheaval and armed conflict.  This is why I, as a liberal Democrat, get so incensed at how the idea of  "animal rights" trivializes both the fundamental concept of human civil and political rights generally, as evolved over thousands of years, and the specific rights we enjoy today under law in our American Constitutional democracy.

         There is no "Warm Fuzzy" clause or amendment in the Constitution which gives legal "rights" to any other species, no matter how cuddly they may seem or how sentient they may be, because there is no other species that is sufficiently sapient to either understand the abstract system of rights and duties that exist under this basic social contract for democratic self governance. 

         Yes, the basic Lockean principle of life and liberty being "Natural Rights," was incorporated into the Constitution, but only as it applies to us as people, and then only as part of a "scheme of ordered liberty," as Justice Benjamin Cardozo observed in Palko v. Connecticut (1937), subject to limitations, duties and other qualifications determined by the needs of society as a whole.

           Certain other species may indeed have feelings, as the "animal rights" credo holds, but that is irrelevant to any system of rights and duties.  On this point, there's a significant difference between the Declaration of Independence, which speaks about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and the 5^th Amendment which guarantees only the rights of "life, liberty and property" subject to the legal principle of "due process." 

         This difference is significant because life, liberty and property as abstract ideas are all capable of objective definition and enforcement under the law, while "happiness" is a purely subjective abstraction, i.e. a feeling, which cannot sensibly be defined as a "right" under any practical system of rights and duties.  For example, it makes some people very happy when they have the liberty to force sex onto other people, or to kill their sexual rivals much as some other animals do in Rousseau's state of Nature, but that clearly cannot work under any "scheme of ordered liberty."

        Thus, our Constitutional system of rights and duties doesn't even protect our own "happiness" as human beings, as a subjective feeling enforceable against others or against the government, never mind the feelings of any other species.  But that is all that the so-called "ethics" of the animal-rights movement is based on, that other species have feelings that we must always respect as a matter of right under the law.  You know, like when Bambi cried after the cruel hunter killed her mother.  That is, in any rational ethical or legal scheme, pure nonsense.

         Our Constitution, our enforceable rights thereunder and the laws that exist to protect those rights are all based on a social contract among ourselves as people, and no other species is or ever could be part of that contract.  Yes, the severely retarded or the insane still have "rights" as members of our species, but that is a trivial objection where the law can, should and does significantly limit or otherwise qualify those rights to protect society as a whole. 

D.      Traditional "Humane Laws" Or Animal Welfare Laws Are Reasonably Based On Weighing Our Economic Needs To Use An Animal As Against Purely Humane Standards Of Decency, Which Is An Entirely Different Matter From The Credo Of "Animal Rights" Or The Violent Activism Of  "Animal Liberation."

          We have always had humane laws, based on principles of humanity and fundamental decency, that protect other species consistent with our economically and socially legitimate uses for such other species.  And since the early 20^th Century, beginning with the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt, our laws have promoted a conservation ethic as well.  All that is very different from the extremist, anti-human impetus of the "animal rights" and "animal liberation" movements. 

         Consistent with our basic democratic principles as a free people, "humane laws" or animal welfare laws, are not premised on any sensible rights-based ethic.  They are instead derived from the basic humane principle of a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind,"  the same respect which in the natural order of the world justified the Founders in asserting their political separation from Britain  in the Declaration of Independence.  Treating other creatures decently is thus not a matter of any "rights" belonging to other species within the context of government or civilization, but is solely based on our expectations of one another that we will not descend to arbitrary levels of cruelty, i.e. wanton cruelty, against other species or against other human beings.

            In this Constitutionally appropriate context, we enact and enforce laws to protect other species by weighing such factors as their "natural rights" to life and liberty, against our important social and economic needs to exploit other creatures.  Thus, while the law should ban objectively cruel practices such as cock fighting, that is based solely on how it affects the feelings and sensibility of a majority of our fellow citizens, weighed against the social utility of the practice, rather than the feelings of the roosters or any "rights" they may legitimately claim.

           The fate of a rooster, or capon, on a poultry farm must necessarily be determined by different considerations from those applied to cock-fighting, based on the much higher level of social and economic utility of raising them for food, despite the shrill claims of "cruelty" that we hear from the "animal-rights" extremists -equating the Nazi death camps with poultry farms raising broiler chickens.  Even among ourselves, we have legitimately different opinions as to what is a permissible level of cruelty in light of different social needs -the death penalty being one obvious example with significant social importance.

           As Chalres Darwin observed about the basic biological nature of mankind and his relevant place in the natural world:

"Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."

From "The Descent of Man And Selection In Relation To Sex" (1871).  That is as true today as it was when the Founders created the system of rights and duties under law that are embodied in our Constitution, a system which as a social contract defines our obligations and expectations as human beings living among other humans, but has no application to any "rights" purportedly belonging to other species.

         Thus, viewed in perspective, the concept of "animal rights" is pure nonsense under any considerations of ethics, morality, biology, philosophy, law or politics.  In terms of law and politics, however, it is alsopernicious nonsense, as will be discussed in the following post detailing the damage this truly moonbatmovement has caused over the past thirty years or so.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2009/05/03/evolution-natural-rights-the-social-cont?blog=214

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

This topic is going to go back to the previous topic extracting old cases and files from the topics of anthropocentrism and biocentrism. The first thing to look at, though, is always the rhetoric. First the term Justice must be brought to the table. You can either take the ethical stance of Justice, or the judicial and legal stance. The predication that one ought to do what is in the best interest of animals can come from many angles, be in ethical, legal, or corporate.

"The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organizations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details."

Lets start with negative strategies. One way you can look at this is by placing an observation that says Humans are the only agents capable of comprehending the concept of ‘rights’, and thus it is not something that is inherently sought after by animals, and thus their life is neither negatively or positively affected by rights. In fact, were they to have rights, we would have to also place restrictions on their actions, and we would have to hold them to the same standards of justice as we do human beings. In this case, we would have to hold them on trial for things such as murder, and since they are incapable of arguing in their own defense, placing them in a situation where they have to operate a system that is not even natural to their instinct is in fact an injustice to them. Humans, on the other hand, are naturally drawn towards rights. This is seen in the concept of the Social Contract. In mans state of nature, we seek to survive. However, within this state of nature our protections go only as far as our abilities to provide that defense extends. Beyond that, we are at the mercy of the strong. At this point, man begins to understand that two are better than one, and three better than two. Man bands together to form a society, and places guidelines upon that which one may or may not do to one another within their society. This is how they establish what is and is not just. Thus, the only way for animals to have justice is for them to establish it within their own ranks. But again, they are not conscious to the meaning of justice and the concept of ethics. The only animal justice is that the strong survive. 

The international debate education association is a good place to start when it comes to topics like these. On their web page is the previous citation as well as the following to be said to support the argument for animal rights based on both ethical and just parameters. 

Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life. We should err on the side of caution in ascribing rights to human or non-human creatures. If we place high standards (such as the ability to think, speak, or even to enter into a social contract) on the ascription of rights there is a danger than not only animals, but also human infants and mentally handicapped adults will be excluded from basic rights. Cruelty to animals (e.g. bull fighting, fox hunting, battery hen farming) is the sign of an uncivilised society – it encourages violence and barbarism in society more generally. A society that respects animals and restrains base and violent instincts is a more civilised one. The basic cause of preventing exploitation of animals is not undermined by the fact that a small number of extremists and criminals attach themselves to it. And it is not reasonable to expect AR campaigners not to take medicine – they must look after their own health whatever way they can until a more humane sort of medicine is developed.

IDEA also publishes the following against animal rights. 

Human beings are infinitely more complex than any other living creatures. Their abilities to think and talk, to form social systems with rights and responsibilities, and to feel emotions are uniquely developed well beyond any other animals. It is reasonable to try to prevent the most obvious cases of gratuitous suffering or torture of animals, but beyond that, non-human animals do not deserve to be given ‘rights’. The fact that we are (incredibly distantly) related to other animals does not mean that it makes sense to talk about them having ‘rights’. This sort of thinking would have absurd consequences: e.g. saying that we should respect the ‘right’ to life of bacteria, or the ‘right’ of the AIDS virus to move freely and without restriction, and to associate freely with other living organisms. We might wish to reduce unnecessary animal suffering, but not because all creatures to which we are distantly related have rights. Only human beings who are members of society have ‘rights’. Rights are privileges that come with certain social duties and moral responsibilities. Animals are not capable of entering into this sort of ‘social contract’ – they are neither moral nor immoral creatures, they are amoral. They do not respect our ‘rights’, and they are irrational and entirely instinctual. Amoral and irrational creatures have neither rights nor duties – they are more like robots than people. All human beings or potential human beings (e.g. unborn children) can potentially be given rights, but there are no non-human animals fall into that category. It is perfectly natural to use animals for our own nutrition and pleasure – in the wild there is much suffering as animals struggle to survive, are hunted by predators, and compete for food and resources. Human beings have been successful in this struggle for existence and do not need to feel ashamed of exploiting their position as a successful species in the evolutionary process. Animal Rights activists are hypocrites, extremists, and terrorists who don’t even care about human life. Organisations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death-threats; PETA are also an extremist organisation. These AR extremists still avail themselves of modern medicine, however, which could not have been developed without experiments and tests on animals. Animal welfare is a reasonable concern, but talking of animal ‘rights’ is a sign of extremism and irrationality.

Dixon, Thomas. "Animal Rights: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Churchill College, Cambridge., 30 June 2000. Web. 21 Aug. 2011. <http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=8>.

This piece of evidence is an excellent example depicting precisely how rights are inherent to humans alone. Now with this article, Dixon exemplifies the fact that there are more than just ethical reasons for placing rights into humanity alone, but also that there are valid biological reasons for doing so. Dixon does say, however, that humanity is required to show a degree of respect to the certain cases where abuse becomes prevalent. In order to be successful on the negative with this strategy that Dixon proposes, it will be important for you to set up an observation and a definition framework to prevent the affirmative from taking the debate to the topic of animal abuse. Remember, abuse is not the opposite of rights. Do not allow the affirmative to set up a parameter around abuse, or you will have to have a strong argument for utilitarianism.

The Pancake Government

The United States Government has effectively voted against every budget measure put forth in a game of politics. Theres a big difference in playing with leverage when it comes to policy making, campaigns, and even April Fools commercials, but NOT with the Federal Budget. Regardless of whether the Republicans put out a bill of $61 Billion in cuts, Capitol Hill has an obligation to put money in the pockets of our government so we can effectively run our nation. How are we supposed to support our troops, when every single soldier overseas isnt getting a paycheck? For many military families, this means that a stay at home mother with kids wont be getting ANY money, and the soldier over seas is STILL fighting for our freedom. What does this mean? You cannot blame Republicans for what is happening. They presented a budget. It matters not if it was good or bad, the Democrats had no right to do this without an alternative budget proposal. It is scandalous and outrageous. It is a political move that will inevitably drive the Democrats to their demise in the coming elections.

Our government has essentially cut off any ability to continue the Wars overseas. What is greater, is that we have now engaged in a War with Libya these past few months. The United States Government is a pancake government. What does this mean? This means that every so often, something gets underneath it and flips everything upside down. Just a few years ago we heard all the accusations in the book about President Bush. We heard how he was his daddies boy in the White House, accusations of War Crimes, and much more. The best of all, however, was that he was out for Oil. 'Really?' I thought to myself. Afghanistan is about Oil? So killing 4000 Americans on September 11 isnt a reason to defend freedom anymore? Seventeen ignored United Nations Human Rights resolutions and a near-holocaust replay against the Islamic Kurds, yet George Bush is a War Monger? How about that War in Libya? Why are we there? What American Interests do we have in Libya? 

There is a big difference in invading a country because they are on the verge of holocaust, and invading a country based on a leader that is an incumbent tyrant. That is an issue of their nation to deal with, not something the United States needs to deal with. If anything, the United Nations ought to be settling the issue. Granted, IO's are starting to take over, but the United States initial invasion and rockets were totally uncalled for. President Bush actually let the House and Senate know he was invading before he actually sent troops, before the Declarations of War. President Obama, on the other hand, has hardly done so. The rockets were followed by news feeds from inside sources, and the President released statements after the press and media already alerted the nation. What kind of Presidency and nation have we come to? A President who handpicks    Congressman to write a healthcare bill behind closed doors, we fail to pass a budget, that way we can deploy troops and not pay them. This truly is the Pancake Government, now we see who is really fighting a War over oil. 

The only hope for the GOP and Republicans is if they win the 2012 elections and reverse everything the Democrats have done. A Budget must be passed, entitlements must be slashed by more than sixty percent, and we need to start balancing our budget. Who is the man for the job? Donald Trump. You hear that name, and may start to laugh, but he wouldn't be the first celebrity president our nation has seen. Just thirty years ago we had a famous actor, Ronald Reagan, as our President. Donald Trump is a wealthy man, and it was no accident that he is such. Trump is a man who knows money, and right now that is our biggest problem. He is a man that is hardly afraid to say NO to other nations when it comes to foreign aid, and has the guts to pull funding where it ought not be. 

Only time will tell what happens with this Pancake Government. Will it be flipped once again, and produce good changes? Or will we keep burning like we have been? With a fourteen trillion dollar debt, now is hardly the time to play political games, but as you can see, there are some people on Capitol Hill that just don't care.

PA Products

Precision Analytics will provide the following products:

NFL Topic Analysis [LD] -$25ea, $95 for a year subscription
NFL Topic Analysis [PFD] $20 ea, $85 for a year subscription

UIL Topic Analysis [LD] $35, $65 for a year subscription

These products will include Briefs, Evidence, Value and Standard quenchers and ideas, as well as sample cases that are nurtured to maximize your debate experience.

Dedicated Cases: $20 per case
These will be cases that include harder work and create a more solid creation. These cases will be written by State and national competitors to their own personal standards. As a disclaimer, our dedicated cases are written by a unique variety of styles, and there are no refunds permitted on any products that do not meet satisfaction.

Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism are two other good places to start when it comes to moral frameworks. I have personally used the two of these many times in multiple cases for multiple resolutions and argued the both with astounding success. 

Ethical Egoism is the belief that agents ought to do what is in their own best interests. Essentially, it holds that ones obligations are first to himself. Egoism, however, does not necessitate a position that one should be selfish. There is a fundamental difference between Egoism and Selfishness. In a world where we are selfish, we only seek to benefit ourselves, sometimes to the point where we are so entrenched in self interest that we become blind to the rest of the world, and are clouded by lust, or self appeasement. Egoism, on the other hand, says that agents first must be in the interest of themselves, because it is their duty to fulfill their own needs and to first look to their own well-being. In a way, we are all egoist. We all eat food, and perform other actions which our bodies and minds require to survive. Egoism states that we can do the bidding of others, but only after we half self-fulfillment and satisfaction. Upon gaining such, we can look to the wellbeing of others.

Ethical Altruism, however, is precisely the opposite. It states that agents should maximize the interest of others in order to achieve happiness, because it is morally right to do so. It places an emphasis on our humanly nature which subjects us to being so interdependent on society, claiming that we function best when we are in essence one with our environment, and others interests should become our interests.

Both of these are suitable criteria for foreign policy cases. Subjects such as Free Trade and Protectionism, American Exceptionalism, and other topics geared toward what the state ought to do in order to maximize stability or happiness on either a global or societal level.

Evidence can be found easily through the Free Online Encyclopedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophical sources. Cards and Evidence to come soon.

Morality

Morality as a value premise is a state in which we do something for a certain reason, because we ought to do so. It seems like a very nebulous subject, because ethics often is a nebulous subject. Morality has the issue of being without a static, making it what we call an elastic value. There are often several forms of morality in which are all inherently linked to a code of conduct as per behavioral norms that are good or bad, right or wrong, virtuous or not so. In forensics, specifically LD, we call upon morality to be our compass for lifestyles, to help us determine what is or is not right. Ultimately, it is a moving target. Argumentation is easy on this subject because of this flaw.

For criteria, you may look to the very basic principles of Utilitarianism and Deontology, to ethical principles which differ profusely in their attempts to create moral justice. Utilitarianism is the ethical position that the right or moral thing to do is that which maximizes the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, or otherwise known as the greatest happiness principle.

            Manuel Velasquez with Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University declared[1]

Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account.

Utilitarianism is a useful tool for governments because their sole purpose is to look after the welfare of citizens.

David Braybooke, Professor of Government and Philosophy at Dalhousie University, 04 [Utilitarianism: restorations, repairs, renovations p.7]

Theoretical attention to the process of making policies and with it to the Revisionary Process is wholly utilitarian, even if few utilitarian writers have seen the importance of giving it prime attention. For I suppose that champions of utilitarianism would never have denied that applications of their theory would take place in the midst of a social process of dispute and deliberation and that in the application the theory would have to make the best of the advantages and disadvantages of the process. In the process, as it carried on in the real world, the theory had to come to terms with the claims of human needs; with the census-notion in hand, it can deal with these claims effectively.  In the absence of a practical calculus of utility, that is the way, through the surrogates for questions about utility supplied by questions about needs and questions about other matters less basic, that utilitarianism has had whatever effect it has had on real-world policy-making. So I do not go outside of utilitarianism when I shift, in practical applications, from utilities to needs. Moreover, I treat priority for meeting needs as a foundation on which utilitarianism can superimpose provisions for matters less basic. Throughout my restorations, repairs, and renovations, I present a utilitarianism that remains true to Bentham’s Master-Idea, that moral disputes about social policy should be settled by statistical evidence about the consequences for human beings.

See the next post for information on Deontology, and attack against both Deontology and Utilitarianism. Evidence and Analysis to come soon.

---

[1] Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer (Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University), “Calculating Consequences:
The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics,” Issues in Ethics V2 N1 (Winter 1989), http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html